Single Issue Progressives.

[ClassWarrior]

We Progressives rant and rave about "single issue" RWers who base all their political decisions on abortion. But aren't we exactly the same when it comes to the Extreme Court??

Progressive pundits always bring it down to Roe vs. Wade, playing right into the hands of the RW. Because the leaders of the RW don't give a damn about Roe vs. Wade. That's a diversionary tactic. They want corporatist lawyers on the Extreme Court.

Think about it. If you read "What's the Matter with Kansas," you know that RWers like Roberts and Miers are moderate on social issues (abortion), yet tolerate the RW fundies to advance a corrupt, corporatist profits-before-people agenda.

It's about the corporatism, stupid.

NGU.

[madmom]

1. It's getting harder everyday...

to balance corporate good & the common good when the deck is this stacked.Good post young warrior.

[wellstone_democrat]

2. sure is: abortion is just electorate bait

for the reliably "herded" into the polls to support a "conservative" position on everything. Roberts, Bush*, Miers and the rest don't care about Roe because they don't have to care---they find them or theirs in need? They can go anywhere in the world to "fix" problems.

Their goal is consolidating power and money. The social issues are to them merely tools to get electoral support for their true goals.

Miers is about Power, not ideology in the most basic sense other than the fact that the ideology or economy of power is always a belief system. The "values voters" are angry because they aren't whipped into a frenzy about protecting profits and maintaining class divisions but about social issues and they wanted a strong statement on that NOT just a "reliable" conservative vote. This pick was for Bush* and his cronies, the "values voter" has no where else to go and Bush* knows it. They'll suck it up for the moment at least.

[renie408]

3. Very good point

When I heard that Miers had been in corporate law lo those many years ago, I said to myself, "Aha! Its not about conservatism, its about corporatism."

[ClassWarrior]

4. /

[Armstead]

5. I agree that Corporate Power gets buried by social issues

The social issues are important, but it is frustration that they overshadow the very real impact that the positions the SC judges have on systemic issues get pushed to the sidelines too often.

It sometimes seems that a nominee could be in the back pocket of Halliburton and they'd still be called a moderate if they aren;t perceibed as anti-abortion.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Precisely.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

6. kickin' for Randi...

:kick:

NGU.

[blondeatlast]

8. Nail, meet head. Abortion issue is a convenient ruse to animate both

sides.

I wonder if it's a good idea to expose it to the Fundies, if it's even possible?

It's to their benefit to see that ReCorporates are pulling a fast one on them, right? I'm only looking out for their own best interests, of course...

What do you think?

[ClassWarrior]

9. I wonder if I ever sent you the article "Against Abortion? Vote Kerry."

It was written by a Radical RW columnist from Arkansas, and it's quite ironic how much sense it makes...

The political marriage between moral and fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party has not been an altogether holy one. Election after election, the controlling fiscal elites have deceived the well-meaning with empty campaign pledges on issues such as abortion.

The truth is that Republicans created - and have preserved - the Constitutional right to abortion that many, including myself, deplore. The striking down of the state sodomy laws in 2003 was also quite Republican, but that topic is for another day. The federal judiciary has been appointed by Republican presidents for 24 out of the last 36 years. Seven justices of the United States Supreme Court are Republican, while only two are Democrats.

Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee, wrote the Roe v. Wade decision which gave Constitutional protection to certain abortions in 1973. At the time, Governor Ronald Reagan of California was an ardent abortion supporter, as was the chairman of the Republican National Committee, George Bush (the former president).

In case after case, the 77 percent Republican Supreme Court has upheld abortion. Why? Republican elites know that if millions of unwanted children were required by law to be born, the government's welfare liability would explode...

The link no longer works. If you wanna, I'll PM the whole thing to you.

NGU.

[blondeatlast]

11. Please do--thanks! nt

[ClassWarrior]

13. Sent.

NGU.

[Selatius]

10. Corporatism has always used social issues to advance forward

Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists gave plenty of speeches playing up their Christian base in Nazi Germany. Scapegoating the Jews, Gypsies, and those godless social democrats was the way to tricking the people to give them more power. Also, they used fear to further trick the people into giving them even more.

Anything that can get you distracted about Adam and Steve marrying down the street is good news for corporatists who want to raid the treasury and cut your services so the money flows into their coffers.

[blondeatlast]

12. And regardless of what the ReCorporatists do, the hard fundie base won't

vote for anyone other than who they are told.

It's no accident that Dobwellertson is thick with the Heritage Foundation strategerizing right along with Wolfowitz, Scaife, and the PNAC crew.

They are gladhanding each other while dipping into each other's pockets--and every one of them knows it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. It's not just abortion

It's pacifism. I don't know how many times I've seen Dems unfairly slammed as being "pro-war" here because they voted to get inspectors into Iraq (which was not a vote, if you actually bother to do your homework and read it, to immediately send US forces to Iraq). Not only do those people refuse to admit that none of the Democratic senators actually would've invaded Iraq had they been President, but they refuse to see any nuance or shades of gray on the issue, and they refuse to allow for evolution of a belief. It wouldn't matter if Kerry or Edwards or Clinton came together and called for a pullout; they'd still get viciously slandered as being "pro-war." It's the kind of kneejerk black and white "you're either with us or you're against us" kind of thinking one would expect of a freeper.

[welshTerrier2]

15. well, i'm totally opposed to this war ...

and your description doesn't fit my views ...

first, i'm not a pacifist ...
second, Dem Senators were fooled and foolish to vote for the IWR ... yes, i've read it in great detail about 10,000 times ... and i don't intend to argue about it any further ... toppling Saddam 1. had to create an untenable power vacuum and 2. bush and the neo-cons are imperialists and sought to fulfill only their own greed by invading Iraq ... voting for the IWR doesn't make you "pro war" but voting to continuee the war and occupation for more than 2 and a half years does ...

you said none of "those people" admit that no Dem Senator would have invaded Iraq ... well, i'm not sure about that one way or the other ... i thought there were plans supported by some Dem Senators to "take out" Saddam back in 1998 while Clinton was in office ... but invasion, that's less clear ...

and this statement is makes no sense at all: "It wouldn't matter if Kerry or Edwards or Clinton came together and called for a pullout; they'd still get viciously slandered as being "pro-war."" ... at least not based on my views ... anyone calling for an end to the insanity will receive praise from me for doing so ...

and finally, you just couldn't resist the good old (should i say hackneyed) "kneejerk" label, could you??

"you're either with us or against us" - well, let's be a little clearer about this ... i am totally opposed to continuing bush's imperialist occupation of Iraq and i will not support anyone of either party who enables him to do so ... i hardly call that "kneejerk"; i call it my deeply held beliefs to which everyone in a democracy should be more than entitled ... those who vote more funding for war should be run out of DC ... if you don't like how i form judgments and prioritize issues, that's just too bad ... but that's the way it's going to be ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. Then perhaps I wasn't talking about you?

Why assume I am talking about everyone for whom the war is a high priority? You have your opinions, and while I don't agree with some of them, I don't think they're inconsistent. You have stated that you will support a Democrat when they call for withdrawal, and I have no reason to disbelieve you.

[welshTerrier2]

17. allow me to clarify ...

first, i just wanted to point out that some of us with very strong views on the war do not fit the description you provided ... i understand your point that you didn't necessarily mean to say we all fit the same mold ...

however, i think you misunderstood what i wrote ... i did not say i would "support a Democrat when they call for withdrawal" ... what i did say was that i will praise them for doing so ... the truth of the matter is i've waited long enough to feel represented in this party ...

anyone who votes for the $50 Billion to continue operations in Iraq is OUT ... i will never fund, work for or vote for them again ... i've had it with these hawkish mealy-mouthed Democrats ... i will continue to vote for progressive Democrats as my first choice ... i plan to lean on certain progressives to take on the entrenched hawks in the Democratic Party ... we need to drive the hawks out ... they not only don't represent "my views" but they don't represent the 52% of the American people who want the troops withdrawn ASAP ...

the Party desperately needs unity but those with entrenched power have no interest in sharing it ... they arrogantly make the decisions and set the direction with very little input from the rank-and-file Democrats ... it's time we made them answer to us if they expect us to support them ... that's the way real democracy should work ...

[ClassWarrior]

24. Wrong. I'm talking about the Extreme Court...

And when it comes to the Court, it IS just abortion! That's my point. The national discourse is "all abortion all the time." For once I'd LIKE them to talk about an Extreme Court nominee's position on pacifism... and corporatism... and human rights... and ALL the rest.

But they don't - and therefore abortion becomes a convenient distraction for whatever the leaders of the Radical RW want to pull.

NGU.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. Sorry, didn't realize you were limiting it to the court. nt

[texpatriot2004]

18. Thanks for your post Class, the corporate profits b4 people has

to stop.

NGU!

[ClassWarrior]

20. Amen, tex. Amen.

NNNGU.

[ladylibertee]

19. Thank you for your post

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. I sort of agree

Being tied in with sexuality (as are gay rights and, dare I say it? gun control :evilgrin: ), the abortion issue has the potential for turning a discussion into a screaming match.

The reason is that discussions of abortion often are not REALLY about abortion at all, but about women's sexuality. One side deep-down believes in Victorian standards ("good" women don't enjoy sex, and engage in it only to please their husbands and conceive children), so that "bad" women who become pregnant out of wedlock should be "punished" by being forced to bear the child and give it up for adoption. The other side believes that what consenting adults do in private is nobody else's business and that women who enjoy sex in or out of marriage are just being normal human beings who should judge for themselves whether having a chlid is appropriate at any given time.

All the talk about when the fetus is viable is just a cover for the real issue, female sexuality.

Pro=choice should be a part of the Democratic party platform, but it shouldn't be outfront as the main issue, since that only creates a target for the Republicanites and their legions of anti-choice fanatics. When asked, Dem candidates should state their position calmly and firmly, and then move on and refuse to argue the point.

[TankLV]

22. CHOICE is the "moderate" position.

It is not a SINGLE ISSUE.

WE are not "pro-abortion" - that would be the equivalent opposite.

You are stating a false premise.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Abortion isn't a single issue? How many issues is it?

Or do you mean that there isn't a single position on the abortion issue?

In which case you're totally missing the point. :shrug:

NGU.